This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Undoubtedly, what transpired in the instant case is illegal recruitment by a syndicate. As categorically testified by Palo and Caraig, appellant, together with her co-accused, made representations to Palo that they could send her to Australia to work as an apple picker. There is no denying that they gave Palo the distinct impression that they had the power or ability to send her abroad for work such that the latter was convinced to part with a huge amount of money as placement fee in order to be employed. And this act was committed by appellant and her co-accused even if they did not have the required license to do so. Appellant herself admitted that Naples, the travel agency which she owned and managed, only offered visa assistance, ticketing, documentation, airport transfer and courier services. Clearly, neither she nor her agents had a license to recruit Palo to work abroad. It is the lack of the necessary license or authority that renders the recruitment unlawful or criminal.[14] | |||||
|
2000-02-08 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We therefore see no compelling reason to overturn the factual findings of the court a quo. Factual findings of trial courts on credibility of witnesses deserve a high degree of respect.[43] Thus, unless there is a strong and valid reason for overturning the factual assessment by the trial court, this Court will not disturb its findings on appeal.[44] | |||||